[HPforGrownups] A ramble on pre school children and a little socio economic excursus

[manawydan]

No: HPFGUIDX 53180

Persephone wrote:

>advantage to being *raised* Muggle -- perhaps wizard-raised children
>tend to be complacent about magic? Take it for granted, much as some
>(most?) of us do electronics and so on?

I'm remined of something that my Welsh professor said years ago, which was
that first language speakers had the grammar perfect, but didn't understand
_why_ they said it that way, whereas second language speakers often
struggled to get it right, but tended to understand better that it was based
on rules.

There's no reference in the books (at least so far) to _theory_ of magic (in
the way, say, that a language student might be expected to study grammar and
syntax). That may be because it's a heavy and abstruse subject in the WW
(and I know I have a mental picture of weighty tomes written in
wizard-Latin - probably just becuse I run screaming at the thought of
reading philosophy myself!)

>I'm inclined to think that what Ron's statement actually reflects,
>therefore, is that Hogwarts's curriculum is set up for people who are
>starting magic at the very beginning. They might be assumed to have
>thought of its existence, even if they didn't believe in it, but the
>classes start with the basics, with no prior knowledge assumed (except

This could well be so. And there are certain subjects, like history and
astronomy, which are in any case factual and don't call for any wandwork.

>Arguably, Hogwarts caters to Muggle-borns. No matter what a student
>has had the chance to learn ahead of time, everyone starts at the
>beginning. This is useful in terms of being sure that *everyone* knows

I think that this theory would explain a number of "problems" with canon,
particularly the figure for Muggle born students at Hogwarts, and the
discrepancy between the student population and the adult population which
would be necessary to support the WW infrastructure which we know to exist.
All Muggle born children would be expected to accept the invitation, but not
all wizard born.

(Pause for speculation about what a "Hogwarts education" signifies in the
WW?)

>accomplish various things. They're still officially restricted from
>performing underage magic, though this appears to be given rather
>limited enforcement -- I'm inclined to suspect that it's intended
>primarily as a security measure against Muggles' learning things.
>Still, if Fred and George are being sent home with letters about it,
>it's at least supposed to apply to them in theory. The child poking a
>slug with his daddy's wand is scolded and has it taken away.

I can't really see any justification for the regulation apart from the
possible breach of security if kids in mixed or Muggle families are doing
"impossible" things all over the place. If you live in a household that runs
on magic, then can you really avoid doing a bit, even if it's just the one
that flushes the toilet!

>To me, nearly all the evidence suggests that the expected thing is for
>parents to leave actually *teaching* magic (as opposed to general
>awareness of it) to Hogwarts -- I imagine the rationale goes something
>along the lines of, "After all, it's there and the children have to

A big part of this would be what the WW understands by "childhood". A lot of
what we understand by it today stems from the Victorian era, in which
children were deprived of participation in the household and teenagers were
"infantilised". The WW appears to share a lot in common with pre-Industrial
England, in which there was little or no distinction between "home" and
"workplace" and in which the children of the family would have played a role
in the family's economy. So if mam and dad have a (say) brookstick repairing
business, I could see the children being part of that (remember that the
grimier and riskier parts of industrial processes also seem to be the ones
which are most susceptible to magical methods).

So this long ramble leads inexorably to the thought that children in the WW
could quite easily be introduced to magic at a fairly early age, at least in
a practical sense, perhaps as soon as it manifests itself.

Steve wrote further:

>But, I don't think they put enough emphasis on the fact that these
>kids are 11 years old.

>How many muggles really know what their dad does for a living? I don't
>mean as in 'my dad builds roads'. I mean exactly what does he have to
>do to get these roads built. My dad alway took us out for a Sunday
>drive to see the roads he was currently working on and even sometimes
>let us ride along in his road grader. So even with that close up
>knowledge, I still didn't really know how to build roads.

My only riposte to that would be that magic appears to be an attribute
rather than a skill. Hogwarts teaches how to direct that magic in particular
directions, but if you haven't got it to begin with, then there's nothing to
direct.

So (as with Harry) when the attribute begins to manifest itself, strange
things start to happen (like regrowing your hair overnight, suddenly finding
yourself on the roof, etc). Now those things could be extremely dangerous to
the child. If Harry had found himself, let's say, in the topmost branches of
a tree rather than on the school roof, or in mid air, he could have done
himself a nasty mischief. Probably not fatal, but even the non-fatality of
it would have drawn speculation about why it wasn't.

Which leads me to think that WW children have to be taught at least to
control their magical powers as soon as they emerge, just for their safety
and the safety of others around them.

Cheers

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri